New England Fisheries

Facing the Fishing Facts

Photo credit: Dieter Craasmann.

The bad news is that the emergency measures put in place this week by NMFS’s regional director John Bullard are drastic. If the past is any prelude to the future, the worse news is that the measures will not be sufficient to stop the collapse of cod. More likely, they won’t stem overfishing on Gulf of Maine cod and may only spread the problem by shifting increased effort offshore onto Georges Bank cod.

Is the Endangered Species Act the inevitable next management stop for cod? If so, there will be a broad loss of management control over cod and other fisheries that have a cod bycatch. Actually, a good case could be made that management control over groundfish should have been taken away from the New England Council years ago.

As to cod’s future, no one really knows. But given the persistent pattern of both overestimating the spawning biomass of cod and underestimating the fishing mortality over the past 20 years—not to mention the likely increase in non-fishing mortality and declines in cod’s reproductive success—threatened or endangered status for cod is hardly far-fetched or alarmist.

Cod management has failed over and over and public opinion about fishermen as stewards of the oceans in New England has plummeted not surprisingly.

Part of the backdrop and responsibility for this disastrous collapse has to rest with the groundfish industry spokespeople who testify and lobby at council meetings against effective quotas management measures. The same ones who have been hammering NMFS for “over-regulation” and “bad science” in the media and to Congress.

For every fisherman who was willing to publicly admit that things were getting worse out on the water, there always seemed to be an orchestrated group of fishermen willing to claim that there were so many cod that they couldn’t get away from them.

It was, of course, nonsense at least as far as the best available science is concerned. Those who may have been catching some of the few remaining aggregations of cod out on the water were not fishing sustainably. They were blindly fishing out their own future all the while blaming the federal government for their woes.

Industry pressure was also mounted to undercut the purposes and objectives of the essential fish habitat amendment so that the council and NMFS would reopen as much of the closed areas as possible and sooner rather than later. The preliminary studies suggesting that the closed areas might be the only management tool that was protecting some of the reproductively critical large female spawners made little difference to these fishermen.

The industry may have cried “more fish, more fish” too often now. The public doesn’t believe the fishermen anymore. The biology of cod belies the claims made by fishermen. And the Congressional delegation may now be waking up to the true costs of management failure for the futures of fishermen and fishing communities up and down the coast. Certainly, no more taxpayer groundfish bailouts seem likely.

And the fishermen who acted more responsibly by shifting their fishing focus away from cod in the last decade may now be caught in a new regulatory net as their fisheries fall victim to the legally required efforts to halt the cod collapse. Retrospective admissions by some groundfish spokespeople, now that the industry may have pushed for quotas that were too high in recent years, won’t save any jobs.

The precautionary principle should have triggered greater caution by the managers and the fishing industry in the face of mounting uncertainty about the health of the remaining cod biomass but it didn’t.

Now, the price has to be paid.

 


Comments

5 Responses to Facing the Fishing Facts

  • SAM NOVELLO says:

    environmentalist should help to bring back codfish hatchery.it worked in the past. .

  • Allyson Jordan says:

    Mr. Shelley- once again you have managed to bash an industry that supports local jobs, local economy and feeds people a clean quality protein. Sustainability is not something man can create: only something mother nature can define. Why are you not looking at who is fishing in closed areas and rolling closures????? Maybe you should take a look at the cod by catch from 2008 in the MSC Assessment Report for Maine Lobster Trap Fishery… Page 69 177,247 PIECES not pounds… Why not look into the cause and stop the same old beating us down.

    • Mark Leach says:

      This notion that somehow the lobster trap fishery has anything to do with the demise of the cod fish stocks is totally absurd!

      I have been commercial fishing for both cod and lobsters for 38 years and the cod caught in lobster traps have always been live and bright. The assertion that the lobstermen kill them all for sale or lobster bait is also not true.
      Cod fish generally show up on occasion in traps around the fall of the year. I have taken an occasional cod fish home for dinner but we usually just return them back to the ocean alive. Most successful commercial lobstermen have specific bait recipes that they use for there traps and could not be bothered using an unpredictable source of bait such as live cod that doesn’t work as well as there secret recipes.

  • Sam Clam says:

    This lobsterman has to be joking.

    What self respecting lobsterman would not kill a codfish he catches?

    Codfish eat lobsters.

    It’s in a lobsterman’s self interest to kill codfish.

    If they catch, they kill them.

    We are supposed to believe that lobstermen are either so stupid they don’t act in their own interest, or so enlightened that they are above selfish acts?

    Ask the whales how selfless the lobstermen are…

  • maxdaddy says:

    You speak very generally about the MA congressional delegation maybe now “waking up.” But I doubt inland members of the House do much more than give this issue lip service. On the other hand I seem to see Senator Warren, who loves science when it supports her side, doing her characteristic fist-pumping at public forums and shopping around for alternate science because the evidence on the table doesn’t support her. You need to name names, and be clear where you agree and disagree with particular federal legislators. Then those of us who care about this can bring pressure where it needs to be brought.

Talking Fish reserves the right to remove any comment that contains personal attacks or inappropriate, offensive, or threatening language. For more information, see our comment policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *